Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Capture 6 vs 5 Jpeg file size

chi hei cheng
Hi,

I have been using C1 ver 5 for a while, and now testing the ver 6 64bit.

Everything looks good, except I noticed the file size produced by ver6 is about double as the ver 5. is there any reason for this?

basically i have converted the same raw picture to jpeg without any modification at the same 85% compression.

thanks,
Alex
0

Comments

7 comments

Date Votes
  • Lionel12
    The quality parameter from Capture One 5.x has changed.

    Now quality 85 is MUCH better than before. Also you can use low quality settings and get decent quality down to say 10 - giving you better quality AND smaller sizes by just lowering the quality setting.

    -Lionel
    0
  • chi hei cheng
    The quality parameter from Capture One 5.x has changed.

    Now quality 85 is MUCH better than before. Also you can use low quality settings and get decent quality down to say 10 - giving you better quality AND smaller sizes by just lowering the quality setting.

    -Lionel


    I have done the comparison among :-
    1. original raw
    2. Version 5 at 70% JPEG (327k)
    3. Version 6 at 18% JPEG (326k)
    4. Version 6 at 70% JPEG (868k) reference only
    then compare the 4 images over the "Multi View"

    I noticed the color produced by v5 is very close to the original raw, the C6 produces slight brighter than the original raw.

    For my case, i always upload my photo to web photo album, so it is nice to have maximum quality at lower kilobyte.

    Thanks,
    Alex
    0
  • chi hei cheng

    I noticed the color produced by v5 is very close to the original raw, the C6 produces slight brighter than the original raw.


    I just noticed the slightly brighter is due to my angle of watching my BIG LCD screen. Actually they look the same:)

    This is because when i had 4 photos using multi-view, i watched them from slightly different angle of the LED Screen. When i compared one photo at a time, they all looked the same.

    Sorry for the confusion.
    0
  • BusterWW
    Photo Size 2898 * 4346
    The size of files in version 6.0 C1 with different quality settings
    1. 100% quality - 13140kb
    2. Quality 90% - 8985kb
    3. Quality 85% - 5666kb
    4. Quality 80% - 4594kb
    5. Quality 70% - 4478kb
    6. Quality 60% - 3962kb
    7. Quality 50% - 3208kb
    With this in version 5.2, as 90% - 3596kb

    Visually, the big difference is not noticed. A difference of 30% gives about the same size. I understand it correctly?
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    I just notice this problem...
    In fact there is no difference at the about the same size of pictures.
    I compared 93% on v5.1 and about 50% on v6.0.1

    In v6.0.1 strange thing is that even if i changed quality from 48% to even 55% gave me the same size photo!!!
    So the slider for quality is not realy as accurate as it was in v5 where change of every %, changes size of result file, which is obvious!
    So question is why to change by 1% if it only changes file size at specific percentage and not by small step!?

    //run v6 on Windows XP SP3. I saw Drew redirecting to this topic so i wrote here
    0
  • Lionel12
    The change of quality in jpeg was to utilize the range of quality better. You can deduct: we aligned to the "industry standard" laid out by Adobe.

    Here is a short guideline:

    85% gives great quality/size and should be default for printout
    60% is a nice quality for web
    40% can be default for web
    10% is still useful for web (quick load)

    -Lionel
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    This standard is telling that change by 1% is not always change anything? Just try save for web and change compresion by 1% 😊
    Maybe the better option would be placee slider with 10-12 positions instead of percentage slider.

    One thing i also noticed... with the same settings result jpg is much more sharpened than this generated by by v5.x (almost the same result files size)!
    I always liked v3.7.X and moving to v5.x i had filling that i must add more sharpening 😊 but maybe this is only my imagination 😊
    0

Post is closed for comments.